Future of the death penalty in Colorado (8 letters)

As a retired Aurora police officer who witnessed the carnage of Nathan Dunlap, I was naturally disappointed in Gov. John Hickenlooper’s personal decision to pass the buck.

I, like others who have written in to The Post, could have respected the governor’s decision to either carry out the death sentence or to impose a life sentence on Dunlap. Although I would respectfully disagree with a life sentence, I would have respected the governor’s right to make that decision; it’s his job to make the tough calls.

Not doing his elected job and making a tough decision forces me as a die-hard liberal Democrat to possibly choose as my next governor anyone who will make the decision to carry out Dunlap’s execution. I cannot trust Hickenlooper in any further political career choices he might make due to inability to make a tough decision — which he would be called upon to make in any political office.

Logan Reece, Aurora

This letter was published in the June 2 edition.

It has been interesting to read all of the letters and articles referring to Gov. John Hickenlooper’s decision on Nathan Dunlap.

If the whole judicial system is reviewed, it makes sense that jail or execution is not a deterrent. The system is broken. Why should criminals be afraid of jail when they can continue and enhance their criminal behavior behind bars? Even though they have committed crimes, they have almost as many rights as non-criminals do.

Only when a convicted criminal is treated as such, with severe limitations on their activities and capabilities, will being sentenced to jail really be a deterrent. The end result would be less crime, gang activity, and no need for capital punishment.

I don’t understand Attorney General John Suthers’ comment about Gov. John Hickenlooper refusing to make a hard decision in the Nathan Dunlap case. It seems to me the governor took time to consider the case and he made his decision. It wasn’t what Suthers wanted; nevertheless, it was a hard decision. You can disagree with the decision, but you can’t say he didn’t make one.

Deb McGlathery, Arvada

This letter was published in the June 2 edition.

Nathan Dunlap, Sir Mario Owens and Robert Ray were sentenced to die a combined 30 years ago. Maybe if our justice system and elected leaders continue to debate the death-penalty issue for several more years, Dunlap, Owens and Ray will be set free and later be honored as saints. These three individuals were properly sentenced to die for their heinous crimes, so why can’t the system carry out their required duties in a more timely manner?

People are supposed to rely on the courts; however, convicted criminals get to rely on their governor. Governor Hickenlooper, you should have kept your nose out of this issue and let the already broken-down legal system just run its course.

I guess the Aurora theater shooter, once legally convicted, can look forward to many more years of life and should start writing his letter to a future Colorado governor.

Garry Wolff, Denver

This letter was published in the June 2 edition.

In a modern death-penalty case there must be at least 30 people involved in the courtroom and doing research outside the courtroom, sometimes for weeks or months. This is an enormous investment in time, energy and tax dollars.
A trial by a jury of your peers is so messy, labor-wasting, time-consuming, costly, and is apparently outmoded.

If it only takes a governor a couple days to reach the right decision, why not just take all these cases directly to the governor? After all, the bulk of a governor’s job seems to be mostly ceremonial anyway, and this would be a great saving for the state.

I hope I haven’t been too sarcastic.

Delmar H. Knudson, Denver

This letter was published in the June 2 edition.

What really concerns those wanting to end the death penalty is the ethics of the punishment itself; the various other issues raised are essentially attempts to cast a wider net of persuasion. To say they would support it if its application, cost, deterrent effect, etc., were different is unconvincing, as they rarely talk about fixing the problems they express. And if you believe something is just, you wouldn’t think to destroy it because it’s not always applied (or doesn’t produce some other benefit); you would try increasing its occurrence to create a more just world.

Also, when there’s no doubt about guilt, other criticisms quickly replace the “wrongful conviction” argument.

So maybe a true dialogue on capital punishment should focus on the fundamental question of whether the penalty is just, and not be sidetracked by the more specific, empirical issues.

Ron Summey, Evergreen

This letter was published in the June 2 edition.

In effect, Gov. John Hickenlooper has declared a moratorium on executions in Colorado. He might have done so formally, following the lead of governors in Illinois and Oregon. That would have put the focus squarely on the systemic defects of capital punishment, rather than on one particular case.

Alternatively, he might have commuted the sentence in this case to life in prison. Nevertheless, the governor’s act was one of conscience and, in its lack of finality (however frustrating to advocates on both sides of the issue), also one of humility.

Stephen L. Good, Denver

This letter was published online only.

Four reasons are usually given for punishment. First, to punish the criminal; second, to deter him from doing it again; third, to deter others from committing the crime; and fourth (seldom considered), to ensure the public that vigilante action isn’t necessary.

Obviously, reasons one and two would resolve the Nathan Dunlap issue. The argument that innocent people could be unjustly executed can be considered if there is any doubt. But Dunlap premeditatedly killed four people. No argument there: first-degree murder.

He has successfully fought execution for 20 years and, thanks to Gov. John Hickenlooper’s decision, he will likely die in prison. We are often told that life in prison is much less expensive than execution. Obviously. It is the delay of justice, here for 20 years, while lawyers fight for Dunlap that is so expensive. Not to mention that he has already been kept for 20 years.

Gary H. Thompson, Longmont

This letter was published online only.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Deb, there’s a difference between making a decision and making a hard decision.

Amy

He made a decision to not make a decision.

peterpi

Yep, he did.

toohip

and thor get’s to decide which decision are “hard” and which decisions are “right.” Note: I would say this is a pun, but this offends thor to point out the obvious, so let’s call it “wordplay.” ;o) (wink intended)

thor

More (what should I call it, whining, nonsense, missing the point of what I said, etc.. ) typical toohip. I don’t get to decide anything. Do you? Maybe you do get to decide and you are throwing us off of the trail be deflecting to me. Very toohipsih.

toohip

ah, yes, the familiar thor excuse of claiming people don’t “understand” what he meant, just by what he said. We’re not mind-readers, thor, so either you have to write your opinions more clearly, or we need to get a Vulcan mind-meld going. Yes, once again, thor, I get to decide many things, so do you. If you’re talking about crime and punishment, no we don’t, so what’s the point?

This isn’t about you, thor, nor is it about me. We’re not . . . “the deciders.” (your ol’ buddy was!). This is not throwing off any trail, other than throwing you off the train of reason and rationability. This is about vengeance, and typical of big bully conservatives, you can’t admit your weakness to be human – which vengeance is a key part of. Deep down I’d like to see Dunlap dead. But killed by me and we the people? No. I believe in a more modern, compassionate, progressive country that the U.S. should strive for and try to catch up with the rest of the modern world.

thor

So, if you can recognize word play , then why did you act like you didn’t ? ;o (I winked. Stand back and look objectively at the wink. Do you really want others to see you do something so teenage girlish.)

peterpi

making a decision, making a hard decision, … and letting the next guy or gal governor make the decision instead.

toohip

Well the Denver Post must of reached too deep into the “crazy bin” of letters to come up with these nattering naybobs of negativity also referred to as crazy town.

To Logan Reece: While I agree with you the Gov. should of made a decision either way rather than pass the buck, the decision he made should of made a typical “die-hard liberal” pleased. But obviously Logan lost his way with his “die-hard” liberalism, when he decided Dunlap should be executed. That’s not “die-hard liberalism.”

To Christina Gonzales: Christina, I think you’ve been watching too many movies about the mob running the business from their prison cells. While prisoners can make communications to the outside world, and some do carry enough power over those who are not in prison, this isn’t some major underworld mob infrastructure. Yes, people like Sir Mario Owens can influence people like Robert Ray to kill a witness, but that’s an exception – not a rule. And convicts don’t have the same rights as you do, least of all general freedom. This is myth perpetuated by people who feel prison should be like Devil’s Island or the Gulag, where you get very little to eat and held in solitary confinement. We’re a civilized society, and we don’t treat our people that way. If you want that kind of treatment – I suggest you move to North Korea or find a time machine. The reason the death penalty and even life without parole isn’t a deterrent, is that murder and similar crimes are an act of passion and anger, and not a well planned out assessment of risk and punishment.

To Deb McGlathery: We agree, Hickenlooper made a decision; maybe for him, a “hard” decision. So what’s your point? Either support the decision or do not support it. To support that a decision was made is not the objective.

To Garry Wolff: We’ve been over this before. We don’t rush to murder people for murdering people, because we know for a (gulp!) fact! that our justice system isn’t perfect and we make mistakes. Over 241 people have been exonerated AFTER being found guilty of murder. How many have been exonerated after being executed is hard to tell, because there is no “official” effort to find innocence AFTER their dead. THAT’S why we don’t rush to kill someone, even in obvious cases of guilt, because it’s not about their guilt that’s in question, but the does the punishment fit the crime. It’s well known not all murders are executed, so doesn’t want that’s been sentenced to die deserve the review of their crime and punishment? And we have the Governor give a thumbs up or down, as a final judgement as an elected leader of our state. Not all agree this is part of our justice, but it is part of our American type of justice. I realize you didn’t agree with Hick’s decision, but murdering murders faster – to show that murdering people is wrong – is not going to solve anything other than satisfy your vengeance.

To Delmar Knudson: While we realize your proposal to let the Governor decide guilt and punishments in all murder cases was being flippant, it seems you’re more concerned about the position of Governor (“ceremonial only”) then the moral of killing people. yes, you were sarcastic.

To Ron Summey: This is what I call a “Pyro-argument,” trying to dance around obscure rationale to suggest the anti-death penalty side who proves with facts that the punishment is wrought with inequalities, should “fix” the inequalities so you can get on with our vengeance. The reality is, Ron, this can’t be fixed in a judicial system across this great nation. There’s no way to fix it when death penalties are left to states rather than the Federal Gov’t. If you kill someone in New Hampshire vs Texas, what do you think your chance of getting a fair trial in Texas are? Then there’s the inequality of race – how do you legislate human nature? “No doubt about guilt” has nothing to do with whether the death penalty is appropriate. There are many horrible murders who are sentenced to life in prison, and there are many people who have been executed for non-murders, including rape. Go see the movie “The Iceman” about Richard Kulinski who was alleged to have murdered over 100 people as a mob hitman. He was sentenced to multiple life sentences (died in prison). Our system of justice that implements the death penalty as a punishment screams

thor

Toohip, do YOU get to decide? I think so. So stop trying to lay it on me.

toohip

Yes, thor I DO get to decide for myself what I believe.

thor

Yes you do, for yourself. But neither of us can decide for anyone else so drop that canard and argue thoughtfully. It will make you sound better.

thor

“vengeance.” Let this argument go. It isn’t material to the discussion. But it appears to be all you have.

toohip

It’s ALL and ONLY about vengeance. You can “dance” around your argument is “punishment commensurate with the crime,” but that’s the weak argument. Any way you cut it – it’s about vengeance, and we know the right LOVES vengeance, so you’re in good company. It’s not all I have, it’s just that this is the ONLY thing the death penalty is about. Even if it were a deterrent, and it isn’t, and you agree, it would STILL be about vengeance. You just can’t stand to accept that your rudimentary natural human behavior is more powerful than your brain can out-rationalize. Dress it up anyway you want. It’s vengeance.

thor

Sorry, toohip, but it is all you have. But keep the faith.

toohip

It’s not “all I have,” but it’s enough to keep you from denying your reality. It’s you who operates on faith – the “science” supports my statements.

thor

“The” science? Is there a branch of science that deals with vengeance? And how is “the only punishment commensurate with the crime” faith? You really do post odd comments.

toohip

yes, it’s call sociology. . try it some time. It tries to studies and tries to understand human nature, of which vengeance is a part of. Like I said, thor, I have it too. . I would like Dunlap to die, etc., etc. . . just don’t ask “me” (we the people) to kill him in the name of a just gov’t. It’s not rational, and unlike you, I “try” to be rational and outwit my human nature sometimes.

thor

Being rational doesn’t mean you have to outwit your human nature. It might mean embracing it. Now, about vengeance being part of human nature, what does that have to do with executing justice evenhandedly after determining guilt using the court system we have. Vengeance is emotion, but the court system doesn’t have to be.

toohip

yes it does, thor. We call them “human urges” because they’re not always compassionate or sensible. It take our brain to rationalize them and consider if the human nature is applicable in a modern world. In the world you and the Repubs want to take us too – yeah, it might be still rational to murder people to show people that murdering people is “commensurate with the crime.” Vengeance is “executing Justice,” thor. You can just declare your justice as even handed justice. Soon the majority will be against the death penalty and it will be phased out. Where you going to get your messianic justice then, eh! The courts are comprised of “people,” there fore vengeance passion etc. are alive and well. Why else would we allow victim’s families and loved ones to testify during the penalty phase following a conviction to try and convince us their vengeance is something “we the people” should consider?! If we’re a society of our peers, the victim’s personal feelings aren’t important – otherwise we’d be having honor killings, honor maimings, and torches and pitchforks.

Were trying to be a modern society and catch up with the rest of the world – not just “old Europe” – and to get their we have to tell you vengeful, sorry, but we ain’t going to kill him in your name.

thor

Did you ever consider that Democrats might feel like I do about this issue. What makes you think only Republicans feel like I do. But beyond that, once again you have run on with a stream of conscience that doesn’t make sense. But don’t let me stop you because others need to read the writings of a bleeding heart liberal.

3.141592

Any “punishment” is vengeance. LIfe in prison is vengeance. You can dance around and pretend that it isn’t vengeance, but you know it is.

toohip

Sure it’s part vengeance, that’s why we have disparate sentences in how we punish in this country. But at least theses punishments are proven to have some deterrent, AND some possibility at rehabilitation and to give another chance. Murdering for murdering someone, only serves vengeance. Keep dancing!

peterpi

I think it’s called retribution. How that differs from vengeance, I dunno.

Robtf777

We have the Death Penalty in Colorado.

In fact, we have the Death Penalty for those who are completely innocent of any crime committed in the State of Colorado.

We have the Death Penalty for those who are so completely innocent that they have never been convicted of a crime in any court……have never been tried by a jury……have never been afforded due process…….have never been prosecuted…….have never arrested for any crime…….have never been under investigation of any criminal offense.

The Death Penalty that exists is not applied against murderers or rapists or those committing a criminal offense armed with a gun.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...